ETHAN NOEL YOUNG, A/K/A NOKIE YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ethan Young appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging his conviction as a habitual violent felony offender. The appellate court affirmed denial of six issues but remanded two issues—involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel—for further proceedings, finding Young had alleged that his counsel made materially inaccurate representations about the consequences of his plea.
The court reversed and remanded as to the involuntary plea and ineffective assistance claims, holding that if Young's allegations are true, he might be entitled to withdraw his plea. The court affirmed the denial of the other six issues raised in Young's motion.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to withdraw a plea if counsel makes inaccurate assurances regarding sentencing, thereby undermining the plea's voluntariness.
[2] A trial court must reexamine files and records to determine if they conclusively refute a defendant's postconviction claims before denying an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If these claims are true, Young might be entitled to withdraw his plea.”
Establishes the legal standard for relief based on involuntary plea and ineffective assistance claims grounded in counsel misrepresentations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung entered a 'straight up' plea acknowledging the possibility of an enhanced sentence. Young claimed that when he asked his attorney about sentenci…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ethan Young appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Young’s motion raises eight separate issues. Of these, six are either facially insufficient or refuted by the attachments included with the circuit court’s order. As to those six issues, we affirm the order of the trial court without further comment.
We remand for additional proceedings with regard to the two remaining issues. Both claims — involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel — center around the same factual allegations. Young received an extended sentence after the trial court declared him to be a habitual violent felony offender. § 775.084(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1991). He had previously entered a “straight up” plea in which he acknowledged the possibility of an enhanced sentence. However, Young asserts that when he asked his attorney “how much time he should do,” counsel predicted a sentence of no more than five years, with Young “out in about a year or so.” When asked about the significance of the habitual offender statute, counsel allegedly said it meant only that Young would be “documented on record ... as a career criminal,” and not that he would serve additional prison time. Finally, Young claims that counsel assured he would be eligible for gain time.
If these claims are true, Young might be entitled to withdraw his plea. Simmons v. State, 17 F.L.W. D1681 — So. 2d — (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 1992); Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In so holding, we note that the record shows counsel strongly argued against imposition of the habitual offender sentence, and that Young also alleges coun sel “was certain he would not be sentenced as [a] habitual offender.” We stress that relief is not always available simply because counsel is surprised by the severity of a sentence. However, as we read Young’s motion, he has alleged that counsel made assurances that he knew or should have known were inaccurate, thereby undermining the voluntariness of Young’s plea.
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records in this case to determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes this portion of Young’s motion. If so the trial court may again deny the motion, attaching those exhibits to its order. If not, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a timely notice of appeal to receive further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montgomery v. State, 615 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…release is a basis for post-conviction relief if not refuted by the record. See, e.g., Perez v. State, 605 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (plea colloquy does not refute claim counsel misrepresented defendant’s eligibility for parole); Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (claim counsel misadvised defendant as to sentence and consequences of habitual offender status on gain time sufficient to require attachment of records refuting claim or hearing); Eady v. State, 604 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…
-
Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…stance of counsel that might entitle Mr. Brown to withdraw his plea. See Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Gaines v. State, 630 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Hamlin v. State, 627 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse this part of the trial court’s order and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing as to the July 21, 1992, motion in accordance with this opinion. In all ot…
-
Criss v. State, 713 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…the plea agreement but for such misinformation. Such erroneous advice may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel which might entitle an appellant to withdraw his plea. See Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Young v. State, 604 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court has failed to rebut Criss’ allegation by merely attaching to its order the ease progress docket and the judgment and sentence. Denial of the motion on this single issue is reversed. On remand, unless the case fi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)